Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Litigation Practice - From: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 133 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
In re Grayan Building Services Ltd [1995] Ch 241; [1995] 3 WLR 1
1995
CA
Henry LJ, Hoffmann LJ, Neill LJ
Litigation Practice, Company
The degree to which an appellate court will be willing to substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal will vary with the nature of the question.
Hoffmann LJ said: "The concept of limited liability and the sophistication of our corporate law offers great privileges and great opportunities for those who wish to trade under that regime. But the corporate environment carries with it the discipline that those who avail themselves of those privileges must accept the standards laid down and abide by the regulatory rules and disciplines in place to protect creditors and shareholders. And, while some significant corporate failures will occur despite the directors exercising best managerial practice, in many, too many, cases there have been serious breaches of those rules and disciplines, in situations where the observance of them would or at least might have prevented or reduced the scale of the failure and consequent loss to creditors and investors."
Hoffmann LJ said: "The court is concerned solely with the conduct specified by the Secretary of State . . under rule 3(3) of the Insolvent Companies (Disqualification of Unfit Directors) Proceedings Rules 1987. It must decide whether that conduct, viewed cumulatively and taking into account any extenuating circumstances, has fallen below the standards of probity and competence appropriate for persons fit to be directors of companies." and "Some of the examples given by the judge are of extenuating circumstances which accompanied the conduct in question. These are matters which it seems to me would always be proper for the court to take into account. On the other hand, if the judge meant that the court was concerned with anything other than whether the conduct, taken in its setting, fell below the appropriate standard, I would respectfully disagree."
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6 - Insolvent Companies (Disqualification of Unfit Directors) Proceedings Rules 1987
1 Citers


 
Regina v Chance, ex parte Smith [1995] BCC 1
1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
The applicant sought to delay disciplinary proceedings by the accountancy body pending the outcome of civil litigation over a related matter. Held: “… as Parliament has entrusted the initial valuation of the case against the applicants to the respondent, and has built into the disciplinary scheme adequate procedural protections for the applicants, we believe that absent quite exceptional circumstances such as those listed by Steyn LJ (in Fayed) … we should not get involved in a detailed consideration of the merits, but accept the respondent’s valuation that there is a strong public interest in the continuance of this enquiry (which could lead to disciplinary proceedings) not being delayed by order of the court.”
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Baltic Shipping Co v Translink Shipping Ltd (1995) 1 Lloyd's Rep 673
1995

Clarke J
Litigation Practice
Further protection was afforded to those holding overseas assets of persons subject to Mareva injunctions.
1 Citers


 
Burris v Azadani [1995] 4 All ER 802
1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Torts - Other, Litigation Practice
An injunction was granted excluding the defendant from an area. It was recognised that an exclusion zone may have the effect of restraining conduct not in itself tortious – e.g. travelling along a public highway – but such a restraint maybe imposed if it reasonably regarded as necessary for the protection of a plaintiff’s legitimate interests.
1 Citers


 
Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc [1995] FSR 605
1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Dictum at first instance approved.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions; CA 1995 - [1995] 3 All ER 534
 
E (A Minor) v Dorset County Council [1995] 2 AC 633
1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Evans LJ
Litigation Practice
It is generally unwise to give summary judgment in cases where the relevant law is uncertain or in a state of development: "This must mean that where the legal viability of a cause of action is unclear (perhaps because the law is in a state of transition), or is in any way sensitive to the facts, an order to strike out should not be made."
Sir Thomas Bingham MR: "I would accept that certain elements pleaded as damage by Richard (for example the allegation that he suffered distress and that he is a shy, diffident person) cannot be compensated in damages, and similar points may be made about E's claim that he was "upset". It is also quite clear that none of the plaintiffs can recover damages for a congenital defect. If, however, a plaintiff can show (1) that the adverse consequences of his congenital defect could have been mitigated by early diagnosis of the defect and appropriate treatment or education provision; (2) that the adverse consequences of his congenital defect were not mitigated because early diagnosis was not made, or appropriate treatment not given or provision not made, with resulting detriment to his level of educational attainment and employability; and (3) that this damage is not too remote I do not regard the claim for damage to be necessarily bad."
Evans LJ: "In my judgment for the reasons given at the outset, the failure to treat or the delayed treatment of dyslexia does arguably give rise to a form of injury which can support a claim for damages for negligence in tort."
1 Citers


 
The Ikarian Reefer [1995] Lloyd's Rep 455
1995
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Litigation Practice
The court reversed the decision of the trial judge that the plaintiff insured shipowners had not deliberately scuttled their vessel or cast her away: "(1) The burden of showing that the trial Judge was wrong lies on the appellant . . (2) When questions of the credibility of witnesses who have given oral evidence arise the appellant must establish that the trial Judge was plainly wrong. Once again there is a long line of authority emphasizing the restricted nature of the Court of Appeal’s power to interfere with a Judge’s decision in these circumstances though in describing that power different expressions have been used."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Bradstock Trustee Services Ltd v Nabarro Nathanson; ChD 1995 - [1995] 1 WLR 1405
 
Chiron v Organon (No.10) [1995] FSR 235
1995


Litigation Practice
The position of third parties or the public who may be affected by the proposed injunction may be allowed for by a court in limited circumstances when asked to exercise its discretion to grant even a final injunction.
1 Citers


 
Harrow London Borough Council v Donohue [1995] 1 EGLR 257
1995
CA
Waite LJ, Hirst LJ, Sir Stephen Brown
Land, Litigation Practice
The plaintiff complained at the defendant's garage, half of which had been built on the plaintiff's land. The judge had awarded damages in lieu of a mandatory injunction for its removal. The Council appealed. Held: Where a landowner had been "totally dispossessed by the defendant's "encroaching building" the plaintiff was entitled "as of right to a mandatory order" although it suggested that the court, depending on the circumstances, might "well retain a limited discretion".
1 Citers


 
Practice Direction: Reference to Extracts From Hansard 20 December 1994 Independent, 11 January 1995
11 Jan 1995
LCJ

Litigation Practice
PD on steps for referring to Hansard in all courts.

 
Bokharia v Blessed Ind Summary, 16 January 1995
16 Jan 1995
CA

Contempt of Court, Litigation Practice
The laws of contempt of court apply just as much in arbitration proceedings in chambers as in other proceedings.
County Courts Act 1984 118

 
Deeny and Others v Littlejohn and Co (A Firm) Times, 19 January 1995
19 Jan 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice
Lloyds litigation could properly be brought on Chancery rather than QBD.
1 Cites


 
Taylor v Anderton (Police Complaints Authority Intervening) Independent, 28 February 1995; Gazette, 15 March 1995; Times, 19 January 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 447
19 Jan 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Rose, Morritt LJJ
Police, Defamation, Litigation Practice
Reports, which had been prepared for the purposes of a police complaint procedure, could be entitled to protection from disclosure under a public interest immunity certificate. The court also considered the relationship between the documentation and the decision as to whether a trial wasto be by judge alone, or with a jury. Cost is also a consideration: 'The case as it stands will be very lengthy, very expensive, very burdensome and very difficult to control if tried by a judge alone. If tried by a judge and jury it will be even lengthier, even more expensive, even more burdensome and even more difficult to control.' The fact that sight of a document for inspection may give the inspecting party a litigious advantage in the litigation does not of itself make production of the document unfair: "The crucial consideration is, in my judgment, the meaning of the expression 'disposing fairly of the cause or matter'. Those words direct attention to the question whether inspection is necessary for the fair determination of the matter, whether by trial or otherwise. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that one party does not enjoy an unfair advantage or suffer an unfair disadvantage in the litigation as a result of a document not being produced for inspection. It is, I think, of no importance that a party is curious about the contents of a document or would like to know the contents of it, if he suffers no litigious disadvantage by not seeing it and would gain no litigious advantage by seeing it. That, in my judgment, is the test."
1 Citers



 
 Royscott Spa Leasing Ltd and Others v Lovett and Others; CA 23-Jan-1995 - Ind Summary, 23 January 1995
 
Practice Direction: (Civil Litigation: Case Management) Times, 25 January 1995
25 Jan 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Practice Direction to ensure speeding up of trials in QBD and Chancery divisions.

 
Rawlinson v Westbrook and Another Times, 25 January 1995
25 Jan 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
RSC should be changed to allow Judge choice to refuse to admit expert evidence.


 
 Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others; QBD 27-Jan-1995 - Times, 27 January 1995; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 437
 
Brinks Ltd v AbuSaich and Others Times, 30 January 1995
30 Jan 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice
Judgment on an Order 14 application was to be granted following a conviction against the defendant for theft subject only to any clear claim to the contrary.

 
Re Dominion International Group Plc Gazette, 12 April 1995; Ind Summary, 30 January 1995
30 Jan 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice, Company
The Court may require deponents to attend in person for cross examination. It has no jurisdiction to order oral evidence on applications to disqualify a director.
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

 
Broxton v McClelland Unreported, 31 January 1995; [1995] EMLR 485
31 Jan 1995
CA
Simon Brown LJ
Torts - Other, Litigation Practice
The defendants issued various applications to strike out the claim, including a claim of abuse of process. The action was being financially maintained by a third party. The defendants contended that the maintainer's purpose was to oppress and ultimately bankrupt the defendants, and for that reason the action should be struck out as an abuse of process. Held: The proceedings should not be struck out since the plaintiffs were not seeking to achieve a collateral advantage beyond the scope of the action. The motive for bringing proceedings is irrelevant, and a plaintiff is entitled to seek the defendant's financial ruin if that would be the consequence of properly prosecuting a legitimate claim.
Simon Brown LJ extracted the following principles from earlier authorities: "(1) Motive and intention as such are irrelevant . . : the fact that a party who asserts a legal right is activated by feelings of personal animosity, vindictiveness or general antagonism towards his opponent is nothing to the point. . (2) Accordingly the institution of proceedings with an ulterior motive is not of itself enough to constitute an abuse: an action is only that if the Court's processes are being misused to achieve something not properly available to the plaintiff in the course of properly conducted proceedings. The cases appear to suggest two distinct categories of such misuse of process:
(i) The achievement of a collateral advantage beyond the proper scope of the action - a classic instance was Grainger -v- Hill where the proceedings of which complaint was made had been designed quite improperly to secure for the claimants a ship's register to which they had no legitimate claim whatever. The difficulty in deciding where precisely falls the boundary of such impermissible collateral advantage is addressed in Bridge LJ's judgment in Goldsmith -v- Sperrings Limited at page 503 D/H.
(ii) The conduct of the proceedings themselves not so as to vindicate a right but rather in a manner designed to cause the defendant problems of expense, harassment, commercial prejudice or the like beyond those ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation.
(3) Only in the most clear and obvious case will it be appropriate upon preliminary application to strike out proceedings as an abuse of process so as to prevent a plaintiff from bringing an apparently proper cause of action to trial."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Practice Direction: (Civil Litigation: Case Management) Gazette, 01 February 1995
1 Feb 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Practice irection to ensure speeding up of trials in QBD and Chancery divisions.

 
Steans Fashions Ltd and Another v Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd Gazette, 08 February 1995; Times, 31 December 1994
8 Feb 1995
CA

Company, Litigation Practice
A company could be re-instated to the companies register retrospectively for the purposes of a court action. The case was suspended, and not to be struck-out, pending that re-instatement.
Companies Act 1985 653

 
Harrison and Another v Touche Ross (A Firm) Times, 14 February 1995; Ind Summary, 18 April 1995
14 Feb 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
The court may not treat a writ as having been dated at the time when it came to the notice of the defendant, in order to circumvent the need for a writ to be served in time.

 
Practice Direction - Appeals From District Judges In the Queens Bench Div Gazette, 15 February 1995
15 Feb 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Guidance on bundles to be lodged on appeal - need to comply with directions.


 
 Practice Direction: Removal of Case From High Court List by District Judges; ChD 15-Feb-1995 - Gazette, 15 February 1995
 
Practice Direction (Jury List: Setting Down) Times, 16 February 1995
16 Feb 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Parties not setting down after order to do so face striking out.

 
Dynaspan (UK) Ltd v H Katzenberger Baukonstruktionen Gmbh and Co Kg and Another Ind Summary, 27 March 1995; Times, 21 February 1995
21 Feb 1995
ChD

Costs, Litigation Practice
Court may order security for costs against Plaintiff corporate and resident in North Ireland.

 
Deeny v Littlejohn and Co and Others Times, 23 February 1995
23 Feb 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
All future Lloyds litigation to begin in QBD commercial court for efficiency.
1 Citers


 
Simon Engineering Plc and Another v Butte Mining and Another (No 2) [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 91
27 Feb 1995
ComC
Rix J
Litigation Practice, International
cw Procedure - Interlocutory injunction - anti-suit injunction - injunction to prevent appeal in the US from being pursued - foreign court pronounced itself to be without jurisdiction - natural forum - foreign proceedings oppressive

 
Goldman Sachs International Ltd v Lyons Ind Summary, 18 April 1995; Times, 28 February 1995
28 Feb 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
The court may refuse to enforce an undertaking given on a Mareva Injunction where it had been improperly withdrawn. It may look at the circumstances of the discontinuance.

 
Brinks Ltd and Another v AbuSaleh and Others Ind Summary, 06 March 1995
6 Mar 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice
A delay in issuing Order 14 proceedings is not in itself relevant.
1 Citers


 
United Carriers Ltd v Heritage Food Group (Uk) Ltd Times, 08 March 1995
8 Mar 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
No set-off of domestic carriage charges against claim for freight charges.

 
Bristol and West Building Society v Brandon Times, 09 March 1995
9 Mar 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
A second Order 14 application is permissible if it is based upon a different factual or legal basis to the first application.

 
Petromin v Secnav Marine Ltd Times, 09 March 1995
9 Mar 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Where counterclaim on same facts security for costs to be entire cost of claim.

 
Practice Directions; Queen's Bench Division and And Chancery Division and Family Division Ind Summary, 13 March 1995
13 Mar 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Directions to achieve reduction in cost of hearings - court taking more control.

 
Hoecheong Products Ltd v Cargill Hong Kong Ltd Gazette, 15 March 1995
15 Mar 1995
PC

Litigation Practice, Commonwealth
A new ground was not to be raised on appeal without full opportunity to test it.

 
Standard Bank London Ltd v The Bank of Tokyo; Sudwestdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v The Bank of Tokyo and Another Unreported, 21 March 1995
21 Mar 1995
ComC
Phillips J
Costs, Litigation Practice
cw Costs - recovery of costs from a non-party

 
Practice Direction 13 Feb 1995 - Appeals Gazette, 22 March 1995
22 Mar 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Amendments to practice on appeals to Court of Appeal Civil and Criminal Divisions.


 
 Kleinwort Benson v City of Glasgow District Council; ECJ 28-Mar-1995 - Times, 17 April 1995; C-346/93; [1995] EUECJ C-346/93
 
Tramp Leasing Ltd v Sanders Times, 18 April 1995
18 Apr 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Judge rightly rejected amendment to allow new defence in closing address.

 
Union Carbide Corporation v BP Chemicals Ltd Times, 18 April 1995
18 Apr 1995
IHCS

Litigation Practice
A Scottish court is to be slow to grant remedy for parties litigating in England.

 
Grant v Travellers Cheque Associates Limited Times, 19 April 1995
19 Apr 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Right to jury trial in county court for fraud needs proof of detriment.
County Courts Act 1984 66(3)(a)

 
Practice Direction: QBD: Provisional Damages - Amended Procedure Gazette, 26 April 1995
26 Apr 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
New 9A for 1985 Practice Direction re procedures on appeal.

 
Practice Direction - Civil Litigation: Case Management Gazette, 26 April 1995
26 Apr 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
New form PF77 pre-trial check list to be lodged 2 months before trial.

 
Practice Direction (Chancery Division: Procedure and Case Management) Times, 28 April 1995
28 Apr 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice
Provisions of the 'Chancery Guide' are to apply to chancery matters.

 
Envis v Thakkar Times, 02 May 1995
2 May 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Security for costs for 'nominal plaintiff' only after some duplicity shown.

 
Joyce v Liverpool City Council; Wynne v Same Ind Summary, 26 June 1995; Times, 02 May 1995
2 May 1995
CA

Litigation Practice, Litigation Practice
The Small Claims procedure includes a full power for a District Judge to grant injunctions and otherwise, including in this case making an order for specific performance.
County Court Rules 1981 19

 
Themehelp Ltd v West and Others Ind Summary, 26 June 1995; Times, 02 May 1995
2 May 1995
CA

Contract, Litigation Practice
Guarantor's obligations not affected save by matters outside the guarantee. The beneficiary of a guarantee was restrained from enforcement of it whilst an allegation of fraud remained unresolved.

 
Joyce v Liverpool City Council; Wynne v Same Ind Summary, 26 June 1995; Times, 02 May 1995
2 May 1995
CA

Litigation Practice, Litigation Practice
The Small Claims procedure includes a full power for a District Judge to grant injunctions and otherwise, including in this case making an order for specific performance.
County Court Rules 1981 19


 
 Whitehead v Avon County Council (1); CA 3-May-1995 - Times, 03 May 1995
 
Lloyd'S Litigation: Report On Progress and Management Times, 05 May 1995
5 May 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice
Detailed report on progress of all the various Lloyd's Insurance cases.

 
Deeny and Others v Gooda Walker Ltd and Others Times, 05 May 1995
5 May 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
A decision as to an agent's liability may be deferred pending decisions in other courts on anticipated claims.


 
 Brinks Ltd (Formerly Brink's Mat Ltd) v Abu Saleh and Others; ChD 12-May-1995 - Ind Summary, 05 June 1995; Times, 12 May 1995

 
 Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others; CA 16-May-1995 - Independent, 09 June 1995; Times, 16 May 1995; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 437
 
Hackney London Borough Council v White Times, 17 May 1995
17 May 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
A warrant for possession is unenforceable after six years without first obtaining the leave of the court.

 
Marubeni Corporation v Sea Containers Ltd Unreported, 17 May 1995
17 May 1995
ComC
Waller J
Litigation Practice, Contract
Procedure - set-off - contract for supply of containers - construction of contract - clear words to exclude right of set-off - equitable set-off - abatement - defective containers. The words "without deduction" have been held in the context of a purely commercial contract to exclude the right of set-off. The court was concerned with a clause which incorporated the word "deduction" with payment: "... without any deductions or withholdings whatsoever." Held: The words were not terms of art: "It is unlikely either could be described as a clear word. At the end of the day therefore, the question is one of construction in the context of the contract as a whole and it is to that I shall now turn." The right of set-off was excluded.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Agrafax Public Relations Ltd v United Scottish Society Inc Ind Summary, 26 June 1995; Times, 22 May 1995
22 May 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
The standard of evidence required to show cause to serve proceedings overseas is that the applicant has an arguable case, not that he probably will win.


 
 Barclays Bank Plc v Piper; CA 23-May-1995 - Independent, 23 May 1995; Times, 31 May 1995; [1995] CLY 4228
 
McDonnell v Woodhouse and Jones and Others Times, 25 May 1995
25 May 1995
QBD

Costs, Litigation Practice
A Calderbank offer made only six days before the date of trial was inadequate to protect the offeror. An indemnity costs award was proper.


 
 Errington v Wilson (Scotland); OHCS 2-Jun-1995 - Times, 02 June 1995
 
Heer v Tutton and Another; Pickles v Holdsworth; Lovell v Porter Times, 05 June 1995; Ind Summary, 03 July 1995
5 Jun 1995
CA

Litigation Practice, Litigation Practice
An agreement between the parties to extend the time for filing a defence, ousts the automatic striking out rules.
County Court Rules 1981

 
Heer v Tutton and Another; Pickles v Holdsworth; Lovell v Porter Times, 05 June 1995; Ind Summary, 03 July 1995
5 Jun 1995
CA

Litigation Practice, Litigation Practice
An agreement between the parties to extend the time for filing a defence, ousts the automatic striking out rules.
County Court Rules 1981


 
 Cassell v Crutchfield (Inspector of Taxes); ChD 8-Jun-1995 - Ind Summary, 03 July 1995; Times, 08 June 1995

 
 Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd and Others; QBD 8-Jun-1995 - Ind Summary, 10 July 1995; Times, 08 June 1995
 
Errington v Wilson [1995] ScotCS CSIH_2; 1995 SC 550; 1995 SLT 1193; 1995 SCLR 875
16 Jun 1995
SCS
Lord President (Hope), Lord Allanbridge and Lord Clyde
Litigation Practice, Natural Justice
The court considered the need for a party to be given opportunity to cross examine witnesses: "In the present case the prejudice which resulted from the refusal to allow cross examination is self evident. There was a difference of opinion between experts on points which were crucial to a sound determination of the questions which the justice had to decide. The result of her refusal to allow cross examination was that the evidence of the second respondents' witnesses could not be challenged in the only manner which was likely to be effective in a case of such difficulty. So I consider that the Lord Ordinary was well founded in his decision that by refusing to allow cross examination in these circumstances the justice disabled herself from reaching a fully informed conclusion upon the evidence. This amounted to a denial of natural justice to the petitioner, as her duty to act fairly in this case required her to permit cross examination of the second respondents' witnesses.
The answer to that question must in the end depend upon the circumstances. In my opinion it is clear from the facts in this case that the justice could not decide whether the cheese failed to comply with food safety requirements without examining the evidence of the expert witnesses. We were not referred in detail to their evidence, but the documents which were shown to us indicate that important questions were raised by the petitioner's expert about the reliability of the evidence of the second respondents' witnesses. The nature of these questions was such that they could not be answered without a detailed study and understanding of the witnesses' evidence. Counsel for the second and third respondents submitted that the point which was being made by these witnesses was a simple one. There were no statutory guidelines, but they said that the matter could be decided by the application of the PHLS Guidelines which did not give rise to any questions of difficulty. But the application of those guidelines to this case was disputed, and the justice could not decide that issue fairly between the parties without examining the detail of their evidence.

In a case of this difficulty there was an obvious risk of unfairness if the second respondents' witnesses were not open to cross examination on the detail of their evidence. There was a risk that defects in that evidence would lie undetected, and that the justice would not be informed about the issues which she had to decide. It is no answer to this point to say that she put both parties on an equal footing by denying to both of them the opportunity of cross examining each other's witnesses. Nor is it an answer to say that the public have an interest in food safety. The consequences for the petitioner and his business were likely to be very serious if the case went against him, and he had a right under the statute to attend and to call witnesses. The issues which the petitioner's representative wished to raise in cross examination were issues on which the petitioner wished to be heard. These were issues which he wished to raise by way of challenge to the evidence of the second respondents' expert witnesses. The unfairness to him lay in the denial to him of the opportunity of opening up these issues by putting questions about them directly to the second respondents' expert witnesses."
[ Bailii ]

 
 Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and Others; QBD 16-Jun-1995 - Times, 16 June 1995
 
National Home Loans Corporation v Kaufmann (21 June 1995, unreported
21 Jun 1995


Litigation Practice

1 Citers



 
 Webster v Ellison Circlips Ltd; CA 21-Jun-1995 - Gazette, 13 July 1995; Times, 10 July 1995; Independent, 21 June 1995
 
Practice Direction (Court of Appeal: Citation of Authority) Ind Summary, 17 July 1995; Times, 23 June 1995
23 Jun 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
The direction gives precise guidance for citing cases before the Court of Appeal. Practitioners are to use Weekly Law reports citations first wherever available.
1 Citers


 
Practice Direction (Court of Appeal:Handed Down Judgments) Times, 23 June 1995
23 Jun 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Describes what written copies of CA judgments to be made available and to whom.


 
 Ferreira v American Embassy Employees' Association; CA 30-Jun-1995 - Times, 30 June 1995; Gazette, 19 July 1995

 
 O'Sullivan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; QBD 3-Jul-1995 - Times, 03 July 1995
 
Forward v West Sussex County Council and Others Ind Summary, 31 July 1995; Times, 06 July 1995
6 Jul 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Service by post at the last known address of a defendant is not deemed effective if the defendant can show that he did not actually receive it.
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 10 r1

 
Cala Homes (South) Ltd and others v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1995] EWHC 7 (Ch); [1995] FSR 818
6 Jul 1995
ChD
Laddie J
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Contract
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had copied its house designs after a senior employee involved in creating the designs left and eventually came to work for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the copying was flagrant allowing additional damages. Held: Though some work had been outsourced, the employee remained the author, and his employer retained the copyright as his employer, and therefore infringement had occurred: "to have regard merely to who pushed the pen is too narrow a view of authorship. What is protected by copyright in a drawing or a literary work is more than just the skill of making marks on paper or some other medium. It is both the words or lines and the skill and effort involved in creating, selecting or gathering together the detailed concepts, data or emotions which those words or lines have fixed in some tangible form which is protected. It is wrong to think that only the person who carries out the mechanical act of fixation is an author."
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 97(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Liddell v Middleton; CA 17-Jul-1995 - Times, 17 July 1995; (1996) PIQR 36
 
Pd: Court of Appeal Handed Down Judgments Ind Summary, 17 July 1995
17 Jul 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Judgments remained confidential until announced in court: arrangements for copies for the parties.


 
 Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom; ECHR 19-Jul-1995 - Times, 19 July 1995; Independent, 22 September 1995; (1995) 20 EHRR 442; 18139/91; [1995] ECHR 25
 
Industrie Chimiche, Italia Centrale and Another v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Etc Ind Summary, 04 September 1995; Times, 08 August 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 774; [1996] 1 All ER 114; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 608
19 Jul 1995
ComC
Mance J
Litigation Practice, Limitation
Procedure - RSC Order 20 r.5 - amendment with leave - mistake - mistake as to identity of person intending to sue - mistake as to name of that party - distinction - Procedure- RSC Order 20 r.5(3) - amendment with leave - discretion - RSC Order 6 r.8(1) - validity of writ - 4 months - RSC Order 11 r.1(1) - leave to serve outside jurisdiction - validity of writ - 6 months - admiralty action in personam - RSC Order 75 r.4(4) - exclusion of RSC Order 11 r.1(2) -meaning - Procedure - privilege - deployment of court material otherwise privileged - principles - application at interlocutory stage - fairness - disclosure of part of privileged document - waiver of privilege with respect to other parts - Procedure - substitution of parties - RSC Order 15 r.7 - outside limitation period
A new party can be added outside the limitation period for that party if the writ was served within time. An interest can be transferred from one party to another if the time limit is relevant. In all situations of such "everyday occurrences as death of one or other party, bankruptcy leading to assignment to a trustee in bankruptcy, assignment, transmission or devolution of interest ... of which death was only the most striking, it seemed self-evident both that any existing proceedings, properly constituted within the limitation period, should be allowed to continue for or against the party to whom the relevant right or obligation had been transferred in law; and that that should be permitted whether the transfer occurred before or after the expiry of the limitation period. The underlying rationale of limitation periods, to protect against stale claims which should have been brought earlier, had no application to this type of case."
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 15 r7
1 Citers


 
Mercedes Benz Ag v Leiduck Gazette, 13 September 1995; Times, 11 August 1995; [1996] 1 AC 284; [1995] UKPC 31
24 Jul 1995
PC
Lord Mustill
Litigation Practice
Mareva relief is not available against a foreigner outside the UK in order to support a court action abroad. A Mareva injunction is not itself a substantive relief and so was not available to support foreign proceedings. A freezing order has to be in support of an extant cause of action, and cannot be made "in the air."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co and Another; HL 25-Jul-1995 - Times, 25 July 1995; Gazette, 13 September 1995; Independent, 15 August 1995
 
Hogg v Aggarwai Times, 01 August 1995
1 Aug 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Court to investigate reasons for failure to obey court order even where deliberate.

 
Rowe v Glenister and Others Times, 07 August 1995; Ind Summary, 11 September 1995
7 Aug 1995
CA

Litigation Practice, Insolvency
Mrs. Rowe sued Mr. Glenister for breach of trust. The judge struck out the action for the want of prosecution. Held: A witness's memory loss is not itself a sufficient reason to strike out an action for want of prosecution. A defendant seeking a striking out for delay must also show some post-writ prejudice caused by the delay.
1 Citers


 
Kelsey Housing Association Ltd v King and Another Times, 08 August 1995; Ind Summary, 28 August 1995; (1995) 28 HLR 270
8 Aug 1995
CA
Aldous LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ
Litigation Practice, Housing
The Court dismissed an appeal from a decision to dispense with notice under the section. A notice to quit had been served and a summons for possession issued with an appendix containing details of the allegations of breach of the tenancy agreement and nuisance.Only much later was an application was made to dismiss the proceedings on the grounds that the notice did not comply with section 8. The judge ruled that the particulars in the notice were inadequate but dispensed with the need for a notice under section 8(1)(b). In considering the words "just and equitable" the court referred to judgments considering those same words in the context of the Rent Act 1977, which emphasised the necessity to "consider all the circumstances". Every case will depend upon its own facts and the pleaded ground or grounds relied on in the notice. The court must take all the circumstances into account, both from the view of the landlord and the tenant, and decide whether it is just and equitable to dispense with the required particulars.
Housing Act 1986 8(1)(b)
1 Citers



 
 Burris v Azadami; CA 9-Aug-1995 - Times, 09 August 1995; [1995] 1WLR 1373

 
 Lloyd's Litigation: Moratorium Application; ChD 10-Aug-1995 - Times, 10 August 1995

 
 Ashford Hotels Ltd v Higgins and Others; CA 14-Aug-1995 - Ind Summary, 14 August 1995

 
 Re Brian Sheridan Cars Ltd; ChD 21-Aug-1995 - Ind Summary, 21 August 1995

 
 Hogg v Aggarwal; QBD 28-Aug-1995 - Ind Summary, 28 August 1995
 
Practice Direction, Court of Appeal Handed Down Judgments Gazette, 31 August 1995
31 Aug 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Rules for providing copies of written CA judgments as or before handed down.

 
Clarke v Smith Ind Summary, 04 September 1995
4 Sep 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
A judgment is to be read as a whole, and not in same way as an Act of Parliament.

 
Eurocross Sales Ltd and Another v Cornhill Insurance Plc Times, 05 September 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 1517
5 Sep 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Auld and Ward LJJ
Litigation Practice
The company was in financial difficulties but not yet in liquidation. It sold its assets, including a claim against the defendant insurance company, to its principal shareholder Mr. Sood. The company's action against the defendant was proceeding in the county court and the company had been ordered by the district judge to give security for costs. Mr. Sood applied under the County Court equivalent of R.S.C. Ord. 15, r. 6 to be joined as an additional plaintiff. The judge granted the order subject to a condition that Mr. Sood give security for costs in the sum of £5,000. The reason he gave was that: "I think it is important that if the defendant is to be adequately protected here then Mr. Sood should be placed on terms similar to those of the order for security for costs against the plaintiff company. . . Of course if he defaults on that, he does not join as a party to the action." Held: The court discharged the order. The question was whether it was appropriate for the judge to have exercised his discretion so that the defendant: "should enjoy the same protection against costs in relation to Mr. Sood as it already enjoyed against the plaintiff company under the unappealed order of the district judge." Sir Thomas Bingham M.R: this was not a proper ground upon which to exercise the discretion: "Cornhill is in no worse position than if the company had sold its business to Mr. Sood before bringing proceedings and he had been the plaintiff from the outset. It is in no worse a position than, instead of being joined, Mr. Sood had commenced a fresh action as a plaintiff. And the potential injustice against which the security order was intended to protect Cornhill no longer exists: the company's action is stayed unless and until it provides the security ordered: but in Mr. Sood it faces a personal plaintiff who is liable to the extent of his available assets to meet any costs order made against him. Depending on his means, he may or may not be able to meet such an order, but the law affords a defendant no protection against costs which may not be paid by impecunious plaintiffs. Had Mr. Sood been ordered to pay, and give security for, the costs occasioned by or thrown away as a result of his joinder, there could in our judgment be no sustainable objection to the order. But we can find no justification for the order in fact made."
1 Citers


 
Court of Appeal Practice Statement; Procedural Changes Gazette, 06 September 1995
6 Sep 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Substantial changes and explanations of procedures before Court of Appeal (Civil).


 
 Societe D'Informatique Service Realisation Organisation v Ampersand Software Bv; ECJ 25-Sep-1995 - Ind Summary, 09 October 1995; Times, 25 September 1995

 
 Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc; CA 29-Sep-1995 - Independent, 29 September 1995; Times, 20 October 1995
 
Prudence Mauthoor v THF Delap and Associates Limited [1995] EWCA Civ 5
2 Oct 1995
CA
Lord Justice Staughton Lord Justice Swinton Thomas Lord Justice Judge
Company, Litigation Practice
The parties agreed for the transfer of shares. The payment cheque was not honoured. The appellant first claimed an absence of consideration, then sought to amend her defence to say that she had acted under economic duress. Threats had been made as to the sale of the company and actions which would threaten the vue of the company. The amendment was not allowed. She appealed. Held: Courts set out to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases. Whether an amendment should be granted is in the trial judge's discretion, guided by his assessment of where justice lays. In this case the discretion had not been wrongly exercised.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Statement: Procedural Changes Independent, 02 October 1995
2 Oct 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Practice direction ensuring reduced hearing times for Court of Appeal matters.

 
Practice Direction (Court of Appeal: Procedure) Gazette, 04 October 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 1191
4 Oct 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Full practice direction for matters before the Court of Appeal.
1 Citers


 
First Tokyo Index Trust Ltd v Morgan Stanley Trust Co and Others; Times, 06 October 1995
6 Oct 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Application to set aside grant of leave to appeal defeat purpose of procedure.

 
Danemark Limited v BAA Plc [1995] EWCA Civ 6
16 Oct 1995
CA

Company, Costs, Litigation Practice
The defendant had obtained an order or additional security for costs against the defendant company (registered with £100 share capital) under the section. It appealed. There was evidence to suggest some fraud by the plaintiff, but also that there was a genuine claim. The court had a difficult balance to draw between stifling a proper claim by a small company and putting the defendant at risk of incurring costs the plaintiff could not meet. The judge had erred, and the security order was vacated.
Companies Act 1985 726(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Georgiou and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; QBD 19-Oct-1995 - Times, 19 October 1995; [1996] STC 463
 
Thermawear Ltd v Linton and Another Times, 20 October 1995
20 Oct 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
A judge's decisions on management of a case should only rarely be interfered with.

 
Berliner Bank v Karageorgis and Another Times, 27 November 1995; [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 426
20 Oct 1995
ComC

Litigation Practice
A plaintiff can insist on automatic judgment despite the availability of proceedings abroad.
cw Procedure - RSC Order 13 - RSC Order 19 r.2 - failure to acknowledge service - failure to serve a defence - trial on the merits - inherent jurisdiction of court.

 
Ablitt v Mills and Reeve (A Firm) and Another Times, 25 October 1995
24 Oct 1995
ChD
Blackburne J
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
A solicitor receiving privileged documents where there had been an obvious, error should return them. The defendant solicitors who, on their client's instructions, reviewed privileged information sent to them in error by counsel for the other party, were restrained from continuing to act. Blackburne J said: "it offends elementary notions of fairness and justice" if, by knowingly taking advantage of the mistaken delivery of privileged papers, a party to litigation, "although not itself told what those papers contain, can continue to have the services in the action of those who on its instructions have read all the papers and who, as a result, have a very accurate perception of just how those who act for the plaintiff view the merits of the plaintiff's claim and of the steps, tactically and otherwise, which they are advising the plaintiff to take in pursuit of his claim".
1 Citers


 
Sills v Tilbury Cargo Handling Ltd and Others Unreported, 02 November 1995
2 Nov 1995
AdCt
Clarke J
Transport, Litigation Practice
Procedure - RSC Order 20 r.5(3) - amendment with leave - discretion - RSC Order 6 r.8(1) - validity of writ - 4 months - RSC Order 11 r.1(1) - leave to serve outside jurisdiction - validity of writ - 6 months - admiralty action in personam RSC Order 75 r.4(4) - exclusion of RSC Order 11 r.1(2) – meaning. Privilege - deployment of court material otherwise privileged - principles - application at interlocutory stage - Fairness - disclosure of part of privileged document - waiver of privilege with respect to other parts


 
 Condliffe v Hislop and Another; CA 3-Nov-1995 - Independent, 09 November 1995; Times, 03 November 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 753

 
 Martinez v Grampian Health Board; HL 3-Nov-1995 - Times, 03 November 1995
 
Gammage v Director of Public Prosecutions Ind Summary, 06 November 1995
6 Nov 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Compensation order which was payable over nine years must be excessive.

 
Practice Statement (Patents Court Procedure) Times, 08 November 1995
8 Nov 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice
Patents court judges may hear summonses by telephone unless substantial point.

 
C (A Minor) v Hackney London Borough Council Times, 10 November 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 789
10 Nov 1995
CA
Simon Brown LJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
The mother had claimed in damages for the injuries to her health from the landlord authority's failure to repair. Her child then brought a subsequent action in respect of his own injuries. The authority claimed the action should be stopped as res judicata. Held: The child's injuries from bad housing were a separate claim from those of her mother, and the action should proceed. The fact of the child's disability meant that the erstwhile practice risked subverting CCR Ord 10 r10
Simon Brown LJ said: "I therefore reject entirely the submission that Yat Tung Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dao Heng Bank Ltd. [1975] A.C. 581 justifies extending the Talbot v. Berkshire County Council [1994] Q.B. 290 principle - that an unlitigated monetary claim is barred if it could have been advanced and established in earlier proceedings (itself to my mind an extended application of the res judicata doctrine) - to those not themselves party to the earlier proceedings.
It follows from all this that in my judgment the doctrine of res judicata even in its widest sense has simply no application to the circumstances of the present case and that the judge erred in ruling to the contrary. One does not, therefore, reach the point of asking here whether special circumstances exist to exclude it; C's erstwhile solicitors' suggested negligence is, frankly, an irrelevance. Nor, in my judgment, does this case come within measurable distance of any other form of abuse of process based on public policy considerations analogous to those underlying the res judicata doctrine: see, for instance, the Court of Appeal's decision in Ashmore v. British Coal Corporation [1990] 2 Q.B. 338.
All that said, this judgment should not be taken as any encouragement to lawyers or their clients to follow the course in fact adopted here. As the judge rightly recognised, in circumstances such as these, it is plainly in the public interest to have a single action in which the claims of all the affected members of the household are included rather than a multiplicity of actions . . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ngcobo and Others v Thor Chemicals Holdings Ltd and Others Times, 10 November 1995
10 Nov 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
The service of a defence was inconsistent with claim by the same party that the UK courts have no jurisdiction over it.


 
 Attorney General v Hayward; CA 10-Nov-1995 - Times, 20 November 1995
 
Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Limited Times, 10 November 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 257
10 Nov 1995
CA
Lord Bingham CJ
Litigation Practice
Mr Barrow was a member of an action group which had successfully sued a number of members' agents for negligent underwriting. Having substantially succeeded, but recovered only a proportion of the damages he had claimed, Mr Barrow issued fresh proceedings against his members' agent on a different ground. It was clear that this claim, even if made earlier, would not have been tried at the same time as the earlier action, since the scheduling of cases was the subject of detailed management by the Commercial Court. Held: Lloyds litigation might allow exception to the Henderson rule to ensure that all claims were heard.
Bingham CJ said: "The rule in Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 is very well known. It requires the parties, when a matter becomes the subject of litigation between them in a court of competent jurisdiction, to bring their whole case before the court so that all aspects of it may be finally decided (subject, of course, to any appeal) once and for all. In the absence of special circumstances, the parties cannot return to the court to advance arguments, claims or defences which they could have put forward for decision on the first occasion but failed to raise. The rule is not based on the doctrine of res judicata in a narrow sense, nor even on any strict doctrine of issue or cause of action estoppel. It is a rule of public policy based on the desirability, in the general interest as well as that of the parties themselves, that litigation should not drag on for ever and that a defendant should not be oppressed by successive suits when one would do. That is the abuse at which the rule is directed."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Advanced Portfolio Tecnologies Inc v Ainsworth Times, 15 November 1995
15 Nov 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice
A plaintiff suing here, having abandoned a claim abroad, may be enjoined from restarting the proceedings here.

 
Ashworth v McKay Foods Ltd Times, 16 November 1995; (1996) 1 WLR 542
16 Nov 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Where automatic directions had not been followed, a later hearing application was not an not abuse of process.
County Court Rules 1981 Order 7
1 Citers


 
Grahan v Szerelmey (UK) Ltd and Another Gazette, 29 November 1995; Times, 16 November 1995
16 Nov 1995
CA

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
Personal injury defendant claiming prejudice for delay must allow for his own profit in keeping his cash. Delay in personal injury cases rarely causes defendant any financial prejudice.

 
E D and F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto Times, 24 November 1995
24 Nov 1995
ChD
Patten J
Litigation Practice
Enforcement by judgment on co-ordinate jurisdiction judgment is discretionary: "… having regard to the decision in Re A Debtor [1977] Ch 310 that s 24(1) of the 1980 Act bars after six years rights of action including proceedings in the form of bankruptcy proceedings, based on an earlier judgment."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
John Rew and Others v Malcolm John Cox and Others Times, 29 November 1995
29 Nov 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Stay for arbitration under agreement can exceptionally be denied to defendant.

 
National Counties Building Society v Antonelli Independent, 30 November 1995
30 Nov 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
A party doing nothing on learning of the hearing only at mid-trial cannot later appeal.

 
Wyko Group Plc and Others v Cooper Roller Bearings Co Ltd Times, 04 December 1995; [1996] FSR 126
4 Dec 1995
ChD
Ferris J
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
A court may not grant a declaratory relief anticipating facts which were not yet in being. There must be in existence of a real question in issue between the parties as to the legal consequences of existing facts. Declaratory relief could not be obtained against a person who had not asserted any right: a party should be allowed to choose his own proceedings at a time and manner of his own choosing and should not be brought into court by the opposing party to resist a claim for a declaration of non-liability.
1 Citers


 
Regina v The Lord Chancellor Ex Parte Stockler Times, 04 December 1995
4 Dec 1995
QBD

Litigation Practice
Judge may sit as an acting judge beyond the maximum retirement age in order to complete his own case lists.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Mulder v Mason [1995] EWCA Civ 7; [1995] EWCA Civ 7
5 Dec 1995
CA
Judge J
Litigation Practice
The parties had been married. The plaintiff appealed conditions on an order reversing an order striking out his application with regard to the former matrimonial home, as being frivolous or vexatious. There had been long matrimonial proceedings, but the plaintiff claimed this claim for damages for breach of contract in letting the home was not associated with the divorce. Held: The action was properly transferred to the county court, and on proper conditions as to payments in respect of costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Slade v Adco Ltd Times, 07 December 1995
7 Dec 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Allegation of prejudice through delay to be fully proved by person so asserting.

 
Slade v Adco Ltd Ind Summary, 11 December 1995
11 Dec 1995
CA

Litigation Practice
Assertion of prejudice from want of prosecution must be supported by evidence.

 
International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v President of India and Another Ind Summary, 11 December 1995; [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 474; [1996] 1 All ER 1017
11 Dec 1995
CA
Evans LJ
Litigation Practice, Company
Actions to enforce arbitration awards were brought, each in the name of a ship-owning company. At the time of the arbitrations the assets of each company had vested in a trustee in bankruptcy appointed under New York law, but the trustee had persuaded the arbitrators that the companies were the proper claimants and had commenced the enforcement actions on the same basis. His decision to do so was intended to avoid the possibility that set-offs would be raised in respect of debts owed by associated ship-owning companies if he sued in his own name. When he started the actions, however, the companies had been wound up and thus ceased to exist. The trustee applied, after the limitation period had expired, to have his name substituted for those of the companies pursuant to O. 20 r 5. Held: Proceedings under name of a dissolved company cannot be revived after limitation period by trustee. Appeal denied.
Evans LJ said: "The rule refers to 'the party intending to sue or.. intended to be sued'. When it is said that the wrong plaintiff has been named, this must be taken as reference to the intention of persons who caused the writ to be issued, rather than of the person in fact named. Those persons in the present case were the trustee or the bankruptcy estate. They were mistaken in thinking that the companies were still in existence and entitled to sue. If they had known the true facts, they would or might well have named the trustee or the bankruptcy estate as sole plaintiff or as a co-plaintiff. But that was a decision as to who the plaintiffs should be, and no doubt for good reasons they chose to assert the companies' rights under the awards, rather than whatever rights the trustee or the bankrupt estates had acquired.
The rule envisages that the writ was issued with the intention that a specific person should be the plaintiff. That person can often but not invariably be identified by reference to a relevant description. The choice of identity is made by the persons who bring the proceedings. If having made that choice they use the wrong name, even though the name they sue may be that of a different legal entity, then their mistake as to the name can be corrected. But they cannot reverse their original identification of the party who is to sue. This interpretation of the rule derives not only from the phrase 'correct the name of the party' but also from the requirement that the mistake must not have been such as to cause any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person intending to sue."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Special Educational Needs Tribunal Ex Parte South Glamorgan County Council Times, 12 December 1995; [1996] ELR 326
12 Dec 1995
CA

Education, Litigation Practice
The Court of Appeal entertained an appeal by a respondent against the judge's refusal to discharge leave granted ex parte. Challenges to decisions of tribunal should be by way of appeal not Judicial Review.
Education Act 1993 168
1 Citers


 
Hamilton v Brodie Brittain Racing Ltd Unreported, 13 December 1995
13 Dec 1995
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ
Litigation Practice
The defendant disputed at trial the authenticity of invoices, but provided no forensic evidence to support his challenge. The trial judge had accepted the invoices as authentic. The defendant subsequently adduced evidence which strongly suggested that the invoices were forgeries. The trial judge refused to order a new trial on the basis that the defendant had failed to show that it could not have obtained the new evidence in time for the trial. Held: The appeal succeeded, and a new trial was ordered.
Butler-Sloss LJ said that, in a case of alleged fraud, the first of the Ladd v Marshall conditions should be approached with a greater degree of flexibility: "Too strict an adherence to Ladd v Marshall should not inhibit a consideration by the court of the justice of the case."
1 Citers



 
 In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof); HL 14-Dec-1995 - Independent, 17 January 1996; [1996] AC 563; [1996] 1 FLR 80; [1995] UKHL 16; [1996] Fam Law 74; [1996] 1 FCR 509; [1996] 2 WLR 8; [1996] 1 All ER 1
 
Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK and Another v Al Bader and Others (No 2) Unreported, 19 December 1995
19 Dec 1995
ComC
HHJ Diamond QC
Litigation Practice
ComC Leave to serve writ outside jurisdiction under RSC Ord 11 r1(1)(c) - whether required to serve on another defendant before leave obtained - retrospective validation
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Oliver and Another v Mckenna and Co (A Firm) Times, 20 December 1995
20 Dec 1995
ChD

Litigation Practice
'Satellite' litigation designed to challenge a court decision is not to be encouraged.


 
 Angel Mortimer Plc (T/A Pathfinder) v Regent Productions Ltd; QBD 22-Dec-1995 - Times, 22 December 1995

 
 Practice Direction: (Admiralty Court: Practice); QBD 29-Dec-1995 - Times, 29 December 1995
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.